When is the right time for the next Wake County school construction bond referendum to be held?
As noted in today's article, school board chairman Ron Margiotta thinks waiting until 2012 would improve the chances of the bond issue passing in this economic climate. But board member John Tedesco would prefer a 2011 October referendum, which would put it on the same ballot as the school board races.
Tedesco thinks people will like the new community assignment zones so much they'll want to vote for the bond. He thinks this will also improve the board majority's chances of picking up seats.
Tedesco also said he believes that people who vote in the school board elections are more knowledgeable about school issues than those who come out in general elections.
Tedesco wants to beat the late 2011 date for presenting the final version of the new assignment plan to the board that's in the staff's draft transition plan.
The transition plan has Wake setting the amount and date of the next school construction program during the second quarter of 2011. But Joe Desormeaux, assistant superintendent for facilities, said staff is thinking of a 2012 bond date.
A bond will be needed at some point. While four new schools are opening this year, there's only one school apiece scheduled to open in 2011, 2012 and 2014. No new schools are scheduled for 2013 unless they accelerate Rolesville High by a year. (I'm not counting the new early college partnership with N.C. State in 2011 on this list.)
Comments
It wouldn't matter if we had
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 13:25 — aquaman4life68It wouldn't matter if we had the old board with burns and delany, or currently with the new board members...the citizens of Wake County would more than likey VOTE NO!!!!! on any bond that the school system put on the plate.
Bond !!!!
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 09:40 — jgegbgmgThe chances for a new bond passing with this board is ZERO. They have wasted dollar after dollar and expect the tax payers of Wake County to add to their waste. Tedesco is out of his mind if he thinks that small majority who voted him and his pals into office will carry the load. I would expect a very large turnout when the time comes to vote and a very large NO to win out.
Woodstock I'm sure you feel offended. I know how much you really care for JT and his group. But you need to learn sooner or later that your pals will end up losers !!!!!!
LOL Trust me, you don't
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 10:37 — woodstockLOL Trust me, you don't offend me in the least. You are my comic relief. I encourage you to keep posting, you help my side more than you'll ever know.
That is a NO for me ...
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 08:21 — user12345The five have not wanted any support or help so far so I will be happy to let them go the course alone on this bond and make it a referendum on what we think of their actions so far ….
...
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 10:18 — SideburnsWow, user. I'm surprised at your comments. I thought you were all about the children. Guess not.
It is about ALL the children
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 10:35 — user12345It is about ALL the children ... this board has not shown me they care about ALL children in their actions, funding, resolutions ... so, far it has been about them and their supporters and donors ... I have no confidence in their leadership, plans, actions, etc. and don't trust their actions and data. I figure we vote the bond down a few times until they get the message ... in the meantime, they can consider year round and have developers build all the new schools.
......
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 11:45 — SideburnsYou're going to anger all your ITB friends if they are forced into MYR because there aren't enough seats for them. And don't forget all those magnet parents who want to keep stability and choice in addition to all those electives. That can't happen on MYR. But, I'm sure they will be OK because us suburbanites understand how important it is to build schools in the right place and at the right time.
Heh...
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 09:24 — Bob_SconceYou realize that it's that EXACT attitude that led to the 2001 (? don't recall the year) bond being voted down which put us into the overcrowded situation we have today?
Also, voting down a bond referendum is not a clear signal -- there are lots of reasons that people would do that; how would a board know it was because of your view and not because of a bunch of childless folks unwilling to pay for somebody else's education?
I supported the last bond referendum (check the archive of this blog), even though I was opposed to the direction of the then-current board because I thought it was a bad idea to punish the entire district because I didn't like the actions of a few at the top. If you want to express your displeasure toward the board, I suggest doing it in the board elections.
I think that was 1999. 650
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 13:20 — zandeI think that was 1999. 650 million dollars. The Wake County Taxpayers Assn. opposed that and I remember they had a slogan "A better way." We never saw that "better way." In my estimation this was the beginning of a lot of budgetary shortfalls for the schools. I think every bond issue since then has passed...??
Taxpayer Money
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 09:09 — HereWeGoI agree totally user12345. Since they have no regard for the current bond money I would vote NO to giving this group more bond money.
I voted YES for the current bond which included a provision that all new school be opened as Year Round when they changed that it showed that they have no regard for what the taxpayers want and voted for.
Was it not JT's Republican supporters that lobbied against the last bond?
I Voted For The Bond, But I Was Also Lied Too....
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 14:09 — JanisTangoThey said all schools would be year round and they would save millions of dollars a year with the YR capacity. Guess what...they never used the capacity that was available because they didn't fill most of the YR schools. Some were overcrowed, but most that I'm aware of were way under capacity. There was no way that they were saving money keeping a school opened year round with less than traditional capacity being used!
there are a lot of
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 15:37 — jeannie84there are a lot of traditional ("rim") schools that are under-capacity; what about them?
You Made My Point....
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 16:10 — JanisTangoThank you for backing up my point.....until the capacity at the traditional schools is maximized it does not make sense to operate schools on a year round calender with a traditional capacity! There is a available capacity at traditional schools, but that didn't stop the previous board from switching several schools to year round that didn't need the capacity!
What there is now and what
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 16:47 — danofncWhat there is now and what there was then are two different things.
At the time of the conversions, there were serious concerns about the ability to build enough schools to seat all the kids. Now, obviously, the growth has slowed and the construction has caught up....for now.
I do believe that some
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 17:05 — jenmanI do believe that some schools were converted for capacity reasons, but I also believe that some were converted for diversity reasons. It wasn't all about capacity.
Some Were Converted for Political Reasons!
Fri, 06/18/2010 - 08:09 — JanisTangoI remember a discussion at the time is that they needed to spread the year round schools all around the county. I wish I could find the article, but I recall that they said at the time they needed more in certain board members district because it wasn't 'fair' that one district had the bulk versus others that had very few! I believe that is the reason behind some YRs being so overcrowded and many being underutilized as well.
Another point, with all the turmoil surrounding Leesville being year round, Chuck made it the only application school for the neighborhoods in this area even though Sycamore Creek was sitting with all those empty seats. That was definitely political!
Isn't part of that the
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 14:13 — danofncIsn't part of that the result of the lawsuit that resulted in the district having to provide traditional options?
Sort of...
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 16:47 — Bob_SconceJudge Manning ordered them to get informed consent before assigning anybody to a year-round school, which meant that they had to have traditional calendar options. But, that went out the window at the Supreme Court. There's no legal requirement for them to do so and there are people turned down every year.
I Don't Buy It!
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 16:16 — JanisTangoThere were two year round schools in my area of the county and with the traditional schools in this area (a total of 6 schools) there were over 900 available seats! They didn't need 2 year round schools and at the same time it didn't stop them from denying people access to year round schools because they weren't the 'right' kind of people they wanted! It was a joke! They didn't save a dime!
We need more schools. That
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 08:17 — woodstockWe need more schools. That is not debatable. Land and construction costs will not likely be lower than they are now. Also, you can not plan long term by only applying current economic conditions to the decision process.
I think Tedesco is right, we need to move forward with school construction. We have the new forward-thinking BoE members onboard -- with reinforcements to come next year -- and a family-friendly community schools model in the process of being implemented. It is time. And, construction sites can now actually follow the growth in the county ...as was never a consideration with past boards because they know they could bus students wherever they were needed.
Need More Schools ?
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 21:43 — Solon77So the administration is throwing out the basic - 40,000 more students in the next 5 years.
So where are we today ? The 2005 growth plan called for 151,000 students by 09/10. We are at 139,000. This leaves 12,000 of capacity the current infrastructure can support. In the last bond Margiotta pushed for adding 1 extra student per class to add capacity, this would have added 6,000 seats. If we could add 1, we could certainly add 2 students to each class - so this is another 12,000 seats. Margiotta wants to increase seats at Magnet schools through MYR- this should give us another 3,000 seats. Growth and Management always overestimates. The last time they estimated 40,000, actual will be closer to 28,000. In recap:
Revised student growth 28,000
excess capacity today (12,000)
add 2 students per class (12,000)
MYR Magnets (3,000)
Net remaining 1,000
Since we are moving to a family friendly model patterned after Northern school districts, we can move to 1/2 day Kindergartens. I have read some heart wrenching stories of 5 year olds being traumatized by a whole day at Kindergarten. Moving to 1/2 day would make the transitions more family friendly. At the same time this would provide for additional capacity.
We should have enough capacity for the next 5 years at least.
1/2 Day- No Way
Fri, 06/18/2010 - 07:08 — Frabjous1/2 Day K doesn't make any sense. Children learn how to read & write in Kindergarten. They need to be there all day.
I do not believe the trauma stories either. I suspect their parents were "traumatized" by having to send their babies off to Kindergarten.
The last thing I want to see is the Kindergarten classroom being "dumbed down" to satisfy parents who think their kids can't handle a whole day in school.
1/2 Day K
Fri, 06/18/2010 - 15:33 — Solon77In the North 1/2 day kindergarten is common and the test scores in these community schools are higher than Wake. In fact the held up model of Fairfax county is 1/2 kindergarten district. With the success of these districts I am trying to understand "dumbed down".
From Fairfax's web
Fri, 06/18/2010 - 17:29 — magnetParentFrom Fairfax's web page:
...http://www.fcps.edu/start/kday.htm
"Elementary schools offer half-day kindergarten programs, with students attending either in the morning or in the afternoon. Approximately 75 percent of the schools offer a full-day kindergarten program in which students attend for the same hours as students in other grades in the school.
In looking at their bell schedule, 1/3 of them list a KG-Split time (implying 1/2 day K. The rest list the times as all day).
When my kids went to
Fri, 06/18/2010 - 16:14 — DrActualFactualWhen my kids went to kindergarten here (their older now) the morning hours were instructional and then they ate lunch, were forced to try to nap for an hour (BTW most kids have given up naps by this time) but the teacher used that time for preparing arts/crafts supplies for centers for the following day; then recess and go home. Considering an entire wing or 1/2 wing of an ES school could serve twice as many students while using the same teacher it could be considered. It would however double the workload of the teacher which may require more TA's so that the teacher can keep up with paperwork--facility-wise there may be a gain. Teachers would have to weigh in on if it is worth the trade off.
1/2 day K
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 22:42 — magnetParentIs your 1/2 day Kindergarten proposal to double up classroom use at the schools? The problem is then you will have to run buses mid-day for all of these kindergarten students to/from school. Not very cost effective. Do the northern schools still do 1/2 day K? Not the ones I am familiar with. It worked fine for the schools that had all children within walking distance (I was in one of them). Can't imagine those who fought the early dismissal Wednesdays would be happy about that. And I don't buy the "trauma" part either.
It seems like the numbers you provided are lacking data/research to back them up - will enough magnet schools be capable of a YR calendar? Programs and buildings may prevent it. Adding a seat to every classroom? Works fine if you have the right set of students per grade to add to the count. Some grades may have a lot of extra 1st graders, but not so many 4th graders for example. Its not as cut-n-dry as adding a seat per classroom. I think the Student Assignment Committee is going to find out how complex it is. Yes, Growth Mgmt overestimated and the growth was not as high as first thought, some due to outside factors. But it does give them a little buffer for the surprises.
1/2 day K
Fri, 06/18/2010 - 17:32 — kbrooks500Speaking only for my home state, Indiana. There still is 1/2 day k. The move to full day K has been recent in most districts. Many districts give an option, so they offer both so parents can chose. I know of no district though that provides mid-day transportation. AM k gets bus transport to school. PM K gets bus transport home. Don't know what other states do, but K still isn't mandatory in Indiana. I suppose if K is mandatory then there would need to be two way transport.
In Wake County the move would free up only 1-3 classrooms in most schools and add to transportation costs. Parents would hate it but child care centers would pick up the slack. That being said it would be a hardship for moderate income single parent families or families where both parents need to work.
1/2 Day K
Sat, 06/19/2010 - 09:34 — FrabjousI believe most states are moving towards full day K. K is not mandatory in NC. Most parents choose to send their children to K.
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/stateboard/legal/schoolentry
Is kindergarten compulsory in North Carolina?
No. All public school systems must offer kindergarten, but children are not required to attend. Compulsory attendance applies to children between the ages of seven and sixteen and also children aged 5 or 6 as long as they are enrolled in public school.
A good foundation for reading and writing skills is important to school success in the future. A strong K program is essential to getting those skills and I'm not sure that can be done in a half day program. If we want to help the ED population, it needs to start with a strong K program.
Others have mentioned the transportation issues and child care issues that a half day program would cause. I think there would be complaints similar to those received about Wednesday 1 hour early release days.
True, but...
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 22:12 — ego7601WCPSS may be set for the next 5 years, but by the time the bond comes up to vote (2011 or 2012), they identify where the schools are needed, buy the land, and construct the schools, it is well beyond the 5 years you state. And by that time, if the bonds don't pass, we could be stuck with more overcrowded schools.
Capacity vs Bond vs other funding
Fri, 06/18/2010 - 15:52 — Solon77Capacity - I don't buy the 40,000 students. The rate of growth over the last 5 years has been in decline. As far as birth rates, I would like to see the details and not some spreadsheet put out by the administration.
Points raised by AFP, John Locke and other conservative groups include:
1. funding of school construction out of the current operating budget. The new school assignment zone model was purported to save some $20m per year in lower transportation costs - this could easily support a new school.
2. increased use of year round schools - survey at the time indicated 70% of the taxpayers would support year round.
3. Private/public partnerships - to be explored.
As a starting point I am looking for the board to convince us on growth and that they have covered the above topics and factored it into the capacity.
After hearing people go on
Fri, 06/18/2010 - 17:04 — user12345After hearing people go on and on about all the schools with empty classrooms during the YR debates, it seems like we have more capacity that we thought ... there is no way with the number of neighbors without jobs that they are going to care about more taxes for a long time.
Cant believe you could type this with a strait face
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 12:50 — Apexcitizen1Woodstock,
You may consider USER12345 as your comic relief but with this post of yours you've provided the entire blog community here a great big comic relief. Did you realize what you were typing? "We have the new forward-thinking BOE members onboard....."
Looks like its been an awful long week for you! Hope you get some rest this weekend.
As to the bond itself, I would have no problem supporting one if this board wasn't trying so hard to push their social engineering agenda on the community. If I do end up voting for a bond it will be because I know or anticipate that more pragmatic non-political board will be in place to manage the bond money. As an aside until we see real $$$ for this "community" school concept, the concept remains one very large unfunded mandate.
Thanks for the laugh....
LOL there is nothing about
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 16:17 — woodstockLOL there is nothing about that post that is in any way accurate...hell, you weren't even right about who I made the comment to.
BTW, I had a fantastic week ...and it ain't even over yet.
Bizzaro-land
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 13:00 — Bob_SconceLet me get this straight: the practice of assigning kids to schools based on their family incomes is NOT "social engineering," but the practice of assigning kids to schools based on proximity IS "social engineering"?
Does your last name happen to be Serling?
Quick to Jump to a false Conclussion
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 17:14 — Apexcitizen1The point I'm making is that the proximity model is as much about social engineering as is the family income model. You jumped to a false conclusion my friend, that I don't assume the family income model isn't social engineering. By the way please educate me as to how the proximity model by default not become a family income model? People cluster by income for a variety of valid and some not so valid reasons. I do appreciate you calling it the proximity model as it's more accurate than the pc versions of "neighborhood or "community" model labels. I'm just seeing one big misconceived and under funded proximity model coming down the railroad tracks from a BOE that has no fiscal acuity.
If all of the above is true than why?
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 10:27 — prescott2If all of the above is true ( and we do need more schools) than why is this school board putting to Wake Gov vote this monday the perfectly wasteful site selection of site U in Rolesville for the county's largest new high school?
1. Why spend more money when we already own land?
2. Why Ignore NCSU independent study and select a site outside of the projected growth areas?
3.Why ignore a 15 person, non partisan panel's identification of an alternative/ no cost transportation solution approved by the DOT to busing through a small neighborhood?
4. Why build a high school for 2400 students in a town that will only contribute <220 students with the remaining 2200 students being BUSSED out of their neighborhoods to populate this NON NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL?
5. Why waste magnet application seats while delaying the opening for 4 years?
6. Why continue to force Wakefield HS to buckle from 10 years of excessive growth with no relief?
7. Why cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to pay back political favors?
The growth is coming to that
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 12:21 — jenmanThe growth is coming to that area. Plus, the new location is not that far away from the original location. Perhaps you're saying that we don't need a new school in that area at all?
I think what they are saying
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 12:40 — danofncI think what they are saying is that for the majority of kids who will be attending the school, the extra distance from the old site to the new site will be extra time on a bus or in a car.
Extra stoplights, more traffic, etc. for cars and buses to deal with every day.
"I think what they are
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 13:23 — zande"I think what they are saying is that for the majority of kids who will be attending the school, the extra distance from the old site to the new site will be extra time on a bus or in a car. Extra stoplights, more traffic, etc. for cars and buses to deal with every day."
And probably still crossing the dreaded Capital Boulevard!
As somebody who has to cross
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 14:40 — jenmanAs somebody who has to cross Capital to get to our elem school, it IS a pain in the butt. Especially since the cross streets just weren't meant to carry that level of traffic.
Yeah...
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 12:57 — Bob_SconceSo, there are upsides and downsides to every site. For example, it seems clear that this site will have significantly better road access than the old one, and is not just up the street from another WCPSS high school.
The two schools on the same
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 13:59 — danofncThe two schools on the same road issue is really weak.
Heritage is much closer to WF and the Capital Blvd area, and the old H-6 site was much closer to 401. I doubt very many kids heading to Heritage would drive past the old H-6 to get there. As a matter of fact, if Heritage, WFR and Wakefield were put in a different zone than H-6, they wouldn't overlap at all, right? There's probably not going to be a 4 HS zone, so it's is highly doubtful that those 4 would all end up grouped together.
If having so many kids going to school on the same road is such a big deal, how do the Leesville (4810 total) and Wakefield (4835 total) schools manage?
Uh...
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 14:34 — Bob_SconceSo, there would likely have been a few, especially with the two schools closer together. But, regardless, the traffic situation for others having to travel the road would have been horrible.
The Wakefield schools make do by: (1) having the high school be at a cross street with entrances on both Falls and Wakefield Pines, (2) being on a 4-lane road, (3) staggering start/end times, (4) only having one school where kids drive.
IMO, the two schools issue was a problem because it necessarily meant that at least one of the two schools wasn't near the center of its assignment zone.
"IMO, the two schools issue
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 15:02 — danofnc"IMO, the two schools issue was a problem because it necessarily meant that at least one of the two schools wasn't near the center of its assignment zone."
Are you honestly expecting every high school to be in the center of a zone? I don't think that's geographically possible. As a matter of fact, I bet it's highly improbable.
I would be willing to bet that if you made a zone that split Forestville Road halfway between the old H6 site and Heritage, a lot more HS-aged kids live closer (a lot closer) to the old site than the new one. If the argument is for decreased bus rides and travel times, how does that make sense?
On the one hand, driving through an intersection and a downtown area is dangerous for buses and HS kids, so they should obviously go to Wakefield. On the other, more time on a major thoroughfare and driving through a downtown area is the best thing for kids. It seems odd.
Looking at the assignment map, it seems that a large section of houses between 401 and US 1 are currently assigned to Wakefield High School. In looking at it, it seems that they may be in Malone's district and close to the old H6 site. But, I'm sure they didn't want the H6 site moved just to decrease their chances of having to go there, right?
So...
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 16:44 — Bob_SconceMy point is that you shouldn't be placing schools such that there's a good chance that the placement will create bizarre assignments. Someplace in the middle is fine by me; doesn't have to be the geographic center.
Forest Pines & North Forest Pines are an example -- from a "let's just buy one tract of land" point-of-view, it made sense. But, N. Forest Pines isn't even inside its own attendance area -- that's nuts. No N. Forest Pines students is close enough to walk to school!
I think you're pulling my chain on the Wakefield thing.
Wouldn't the Forest Pines/N
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 16:54 — danofncWouldn't the Forest Pines/N Forest Pines example really be the ultimate in parental choice?
It looks like the assignment area for Forest Pines is the calendar application assignment for NFP. Those parents only have to choose a calendar, the schools are side by side. If NFP was in the middle of its base area, wouldn't FP parents who wanted YR be griping because their YR option was too far away?
If you mean the Wakefield HS assignment thing, I can assure you I'm not yanking your chain. Go look at the map.
Oh...
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 17:18 — Bob_SconceWould that were true -- last I heard, Forest Pines is capped.
As far as the Wakefield HS thing -- if you actually drove that, I think you'd see that traffic is a lot worse to Wakefield than going through "downtown" Rolesville. Also, by rights, those students should be going to Heritage next year: when Bedford parents talk about students passing each other on their way to their respective high schools, those are the kids the Bedford students would be passing.
IMO, the two schools issue
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 14:39 — jenmanIMO, the two schools issue was a problem because it necessarily meant that at least one of the two schools wasn't near the center of its assignment zone.
Good questions but Malone's
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 10:33 — red_balloonGood questions but Malone's support is needed to drive the new direction. So, unless you can get Sutton/ Hill/ Mclaurin/ Morrison to stop pontificating and seek compromises, these expensive trade-offs will be the norm.
Compromises
Thu, 06/17/2010 - 11:24 — prescott2I seriously doubt if Malone can stay awake long enough to finish his term. Must be sleep deprived from all those glaring light bulbs Einstein invented.
Eventually people will realize that we can't afford the new dream. Why else would John Tedesco be lobbying for a new bond? Is it possible all those zones are looking pretty screwed up with overcrowded/underutilized schools and the little yellow busses still chugging along?
Maybe, just maybe compromises need to be made by the new majority too. Campaign promises and the price tag of reality are out of sync.